High Court · 2025

2. After hearing counsel for the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 01.12.2023:-

1. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran as well as Shri Kartikeya Saran independently also, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Considering the fact that the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 has been passed on a complaint made by one Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead Sanjay Jain as respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition during the course of the day.

3. Since by the order impugned, registration of petitioner No. 9, Society has been cancelled, before the matter could be heard on merits, the Court raised query from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why should this writ petition be entertained ignoring statutory remedy of appeal under section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in the State of U.P.) Answering the said query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar against entertainment of a writ petition particularly in those cases where either the order is without jurisdiction or it has been passed committing utter violation of principles of Natural Justice.

4. In the light of the said submission, the Court proceeded to satisfy itself as to whether one or both the aforesaid ingredients stand satisfied in the facts of the present case.

5. It is contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 are the members of petitioner No.9, Society, which was registered on 13.11.2019. The submission is that one builder namely, Dream Procon Private Limited (DPPL) proceeded to construct a residential project, however it become insolvent and the proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were launched against him and the matter is now pending before National Company Law Tribunal. The submission is that in order to complete the incomplete project left out by the builder, when the petitioners formed a society and got it registered in 2019, they submitted a proposal to the Committee of Creditors, which approved the same in its meeting dated 07.05.2021 and now the matter is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal for further orders. It is contended that the newly impleaded respondent No. 3, Sanjay Jain, who is neither a Home Buyer nor a member of the petitioners' Society, but a man of the builder himself, proceeded to move complaints one after another, against the affairs of the Society since 2021 onwards and the petitioners continued to respond to the said complaints before the Deputy Registrar, however no order was passed by the Deputy Registrar, but this time, in pursuance of identical complaints of 2023, the order impugned has been passed recording that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar, no response has been given by the petitioners and, therefore, it would be presumed that they have no say in the matter. Recording such observation, the registration of the Society has been cancelled.

6. Submission is that cancellation of registration of the Society would nullify the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal as well as the petitioners' interest in the matter, and in that event not only the project would remain incomplete forever, but also the buyers and other members of the Society shall suffer.

7. Having perused the record, the Court finds that there is no finding recorded in the order impugned on merits or as regards to the satisfaction of the requirements under section 12-D of the Act of 1860. The only reason assigned in the order impugned is that two show cause notices issued in June and September, 2023 remained unanswered. The record of the writ petition shows that for the last about three years, identical exercise was going on, but there was no adjudication.

8. In the totality of the facts of the case, particularly when the Committee of Creditors has already approved the resolution plan submitted by the petitioners-Society and the matter is sub-judice before the National Company Law Tribunal and in any case, it is the interest of the Home Buyers that has to be primarily taken care of by this Court, the cancellation of registration of the Society without recording any justification or reasonable finding appears to be prima facie illegal.

9. Under such circumstances, the Court is also satisfied that principles of Natural Justice have been violated as there is no consideration of response given to the identical complaints and, therefore, availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is not an absolute bar in entertainment of this writ petition.

10. Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent No.3, returnable within six weeks.

11. Steps be taken within ten days.

12. The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks.

13. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.

14. List this case before the appropriate Bench in top ten cases on 03.04.2024.

15. The petitioners are directed to submit a detailed reply before the Deputy Registrar as against the complaints or show cause notice etc. along with a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Registrar in the month of December, 2023

16. The Deputy Registrar shall make a fresh adjudication of the matter strictly in accordance with law, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the complainant Sanjay Jain, before 31.03.2024.

17. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut shall remain stayed.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a decision was taken by the respondent No.2 on

04.09.2024. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred Writ C No.33307 of 2024 which was finally allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 which reads as follows:-

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and Sri Shrikrishna Shukla, Advocate, who have filed caveator, though not reported, for the unimpleaded respondents.

2. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate states that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and states that the matter may be heard and decided at this stage.

3. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad by which he has cancelled the registration of the Society in the name of 'Victory Ace Social Welfare Society, Flat No.1703, Block- W Homes 121, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar' (hereinafter referred to as 'Society').

4. Earlier the matter was travelled to this Court by means of Writ-C No.39288 of 2023 in which this Court passed the following order on 01.12.2023:- "1. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran as well as Shri Kartikeya Saran independently also, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Considering the fact that the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 has been passed on a complaint made by one Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead Sanjay Jain as respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition during the course of the day.

3. Since by the order impugned, registration of petitioner No. 9, Society has been cancelled, before the matter could be heard on merits, the Court raised query from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why should this writ petition be entertained ignoring statutory remedy of appeal under section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in the State of U.P.) Answering the said query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar against entertainment of a writ petition particularly in those cases where either the order is without jurisdiction or it has been passed committing utter violation of principles of Natural Justice.

4. In the light of the said submission, the Court proceeded to satisfy itself as to whether one or both the aforesaid ingredients stand satisfied in the facts of the present case.

5. It is contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 are the members of petitioner No.9, Society, which was registered on 13.11.2019. The submission is that one builder namely, Dream Procon Private Limited (DPPL) proceeded to construct a residential project, however it become insolvent and the proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were launched against him and the matter is now pending before National Company Law Tribunal. The submission is that in order to complete the incomplete project left out by the builder, when the petitioners formed a society and got it registered in 2019, they submitted a proposal to the Committee of Creditors, which approved the same in its meeting dated 07.05.2021 and now the matter is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal for further orders. It is contended that the newly impleaded respondent No. 3, Sanjay Jain, who is neither a Home Buyer nor a member of the petitioners' Society, but a man of the builder himself, proceeded to move complaints one after another, against the affairs of the Society since 2021 onwards and the petitioners continued to respond to the said complaints before the Deputy Registrar, however no order was passed by the Deputy Registrar, but this time, in pursuance of identical complaints of 2023, the order impugned has been passed recording that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar, no response has been given by the petitioners and, therefore, it would be presumed that they have no say in the matter. Recording such observation, the registration of the Society has been cancelled.

6. Submission is that cancellation of registration of the Society would nullify the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal as well as the petitioners' interest in the matter, and in that event not only the project would remain incomplete forever, but also the buyers and other members of the Society shall suffer.

7. Having perused the record, the Court finds that there is no finding recorded in the order impugned on merits or as regards to the satisfaction of the requirements under section 12-D of the Act of 1860. The only reason assigned in the order impugned is that two show cause notices issued in June and September, 2023 remained unanswered. The record of the writ petition shows that for the last about three years, identical exercise was going on, but there was no adjudication.

8. In the totality of the facts of the case, particularly when the Committee of Creditors has already approved the resolution plan submitted by the petitioners-Society and the matter is sub-judice before the National Company Law Tribunal and in any case, it is the interest of the Home Buyers that has to be primarily taken care of by this Court, the cancellation of registration of the Society without recording any justification or reasonable finding appears to be prima facie illegal.

9. Under such circumstances, the Court is also satisfied that principles of Natural Justice have been violated as there is no consideration of response given to the identical complaints and, therefore, availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is not an absolute bar in entertainment of this writ petition.

10. Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent No.3, returnable within six weeks.

11. Steps be taken within ten days.

12. The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks.

13. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.

14. List this case before the appropriate Bench in top ten cases on 03.04.2024.

15. The petitioners are directed to submit a detailed reply before the Deputy Registrar as against the complaints or show cause notice etc. along with a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Registrar in the month of December, 2023.

16. The Deputy Registrar shall make a fresh adjudication of the matter strictly in accordance with law, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the complainant Sanjay Jain, before 31.03.2024.

17. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut shall remain stayed."

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.12.2023, the matter has been decided by the respondent no.2 by order dated 04.09.2024 by which he has cancelled the registration of the Society.

6. The sole contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that impugned order has been passed without application of mind inasmuch as it is bereft of any reason. It is submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking inasmuch as no reason has been assigned by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad in concluding that Society is engaged in industrial and commercial activities. Thus, it is contended that since no reason has been given by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad while passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

7. Be that as it may, the relevant finding given by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order is reproduced herein below:- "अततः उपररो्ሹ कके ्ቅम मम ससंस्थथा ककी गतततविधधियोሱ पसंजजीककत ममूल पसंजजीककत ममूल उदकेश्य एविसं तनियम और पसंजजीकरण कके आविकेदनि कके समय उनिकके दथारथा ्ቚस्ततुत शपथ पतोሱ कके तविपरजीत। तविपरजीत हहै। ससंस्थथा सरोसथायटजी रधजस्टटकेशनि एक्ट 1860 कके अन्तगरत कल्यथाणकथारजी वि गहैर लथाभकथारजी सरोसथाइटजी कके रूप मम पसंजजीककत हरोनिके कके बथाविजमूद व्यथाविसथातयक एविसं विथातणजजयक गतततविधधियोሱ मम ससंधल्቎ हहै। उपररो्ሹथानितुसथार ्ቚश्निगत सरोसथाइटजी अपनिके पसंजजीककत उदकेश्योሱ कके अनितुरूप कथायर करनिके मम पमूणरततः तविफल रहजी हहै। अततः तविक्टटजी ऐस सरोशल विकेलफकेयर सरोसथाइटजी, फ्लहैट निसं0-1703, ब्लथाक डब्ल्यमू हरोम्स, 121, निरोएडथा, सहैक्टर-121, सहैक्ट निरोएडथा, गगौतमबतु्ቍनिगर कथा पसंजजीकरण सरोसथाइटजीज रधजस्टटकेशनि एक्ट 1860 कके अन्तगरत पसंजजीकरण ससंख्यथा-जजीबजीएनि/07116 पतथाविलजी ससंख्यथा-एम/जजीबजीएनि/0017762, पसंजजीकरण तदनिथासंकतः 13.11.2019 करो सरोसथाइटजीज रधजस्टटकेशनि एक्ट 1860 ककी धिथारथा-12 घ (ग) कके अन्तगरत तत्कथाल ्ቚभथावि सके तनिरस्त तकयथा जथातथा हहै। उपररो्ሹथानितुसथार मथानिनिजीय उच्च स्थथायथालय, इलथाहथाबथाद मम यरोधजत यथातचकथा ससं0-39288/2023 मम पथाररत आदकेश तदनिथासंकतः 01.12.2023 कके अनितुपथालनि मम ्ቚकरण तनिस्तथाररत तकयथा जथातथा हहै।"

8. Learned counsel for the respondents despite his best effort could not demonstrate from the impugned order that respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad while recording a finding that Society is involved in industrial and commercial activities has assigned any reason in respect of said finding.

9. Perusal of the order, extracted above, reveals that no reason at all has been given by the respondent no.2 in concluding that Society is engaged in commercial and industrial activities.

10. In such view of the fact, the impugned order being non-speaking and without application of mind is not sustainable in law and is accordingly, set aside.

11. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad to decide the dispute afresh strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

12. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

4. After going through the same, the Court is of the opinion that the present petition has now become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismiss as having become infructuous.

5. At this stage, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the petition has now become infructuous but the observation should be made that order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Meerut U.P. by which the registration of Victory Ace Social Welfare Society had been cancelled has now became in operative pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent No.2 on 04.09.2023 as well as the order

25.10.2024 passed by this Court which is quoted above..

6. In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous subject to observation that the order dated 07.10.2023 which is under challenge in the present petition has now become inoperative. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. After hearing counsel for the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 01.12.2023:-

1. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran as well as Shri Kartikeya Saran independently also, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Considering the fact that the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 has been passed on a complaint made by one Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead Sanjay Jain as respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition during the course of the day.

3. Since by the order impugned, registration of petitioner No. 9, Society has been cancelled, before the matter could be heard on merits, the Court raised query from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why should this writ petition be entertained ignoring statutory remedy of appeal under section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in the State of U.P.) Answering the said query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar against entertainment of a writ petition particularly in those cases where either the order is without jurisdiction or it has been passed committing utter violation of principles of Natural Justice.

4. In the light of the said submission, the Court proceeded to satisfy itself as to whether one or both the aforesaid ingredients stand satisfied in the facts of the present case.

5. It is contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 are the members of petitioner No.9, Society, which was registered on 13.11.2019. The submission is that one builder namely, Dream Procon Private Limited (DPPL) proceeded to construct a residential project, however it become insolvent and the proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were launched against him and the matter is now pending before National Company Law Tribunal. The submission is that in order to complete the incomplete project left out by the builder, when the petitioners formed a society and got it registered in 2019, they submitted a proposal to the Committee of Creditors, which approved the same in its meeting dated 07.05.2021 and now the matter is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal for further orders. It is contended that the newly impleaded respondent No. 3, Sanjay Jain, who is neither a Home Buyer nor a member of the petitioners' Society, but a man of the builder himself, proceeded to move complaints one after another, against the affairs of the Society since 2021 onwards and the petitioners continued to respond to the said complaints before the Deputy Registrar, however no order was passed by the Deputy Registrar, but this time, in pursuance of identical complaints of 2023, the order impugned has been passed recording that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar, no response has been given by the petitioners and, therefore, it would be presumed that they have no say in the matter. Recording such observation, the registration of the Society has been cancelled.

6. Submission is that cancellation of registration of the Society would nullify the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal as well as the petitioners' interest in the matter, and in that event not only the project would remain incomplete forever, but also the buyers and other members of the Society shall suffer.

7. Having perused the record, the Court finds that there is no finding recorded in the order impugned on merits or as regards to the satisfaction of the requirements under section 12-D of the Act of 1860. The only reason assigned in the order impugned is that two show cause notices issued in June and September, 2023 remained unanswered. The record of the writ petition shows that for the last about three years, identical exercise was going on, but there was no adjudication.

8. In the totality of the facts of the case, particularly when the Committee of Creditors has already approved the resolution plan submitted by the petitioners-Society and the matter is sub-judice before the National Company Law Tribunal and in any case, it is the interest of the Home Buyers that has to be primarily taken care of by this Court, the cancellation of registration of the Society without recording any justification or reasonable finding appears to be prima facie illegal.

9. Under such circumstances, the Court is also satisfied that principles of Natural Justice have been violated as there is no consideration of response given to the identical complaints and, therefore, availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is not an absolute bar in entertainment of this writ petition.

10. Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent No.3, returnable within six weeks.

11. Steps be taken within ten days.

12. The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks.

13. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.

14. List this case before the appropriate Bench in top ten cases on 03.04.2024.

15. The petitioners are directed to submit a detailed reply before the Deputy Registrar as against the complaints or show cause notice etc. along with a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Registrar in the month of December, 2023

16. The Deputy Registrar shall make a fresh adjudication of the matter strictly in accordance with law, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the complainant Sanjay Jain, before 31.03.2024.

17. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut shall remain stayed.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a decision was taken by the respondent No.2 on

04.09.2024. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred Writ C No.33307 of 2024 which was finally allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 which reads as follows:-

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and Sri Shrikrishna Shukla, Advocate, who have filed caveator, though not reported, for the unimpleaded respondents.

2. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate states that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and states that the matter may be heard and decided at this stage.

3. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad by which he has cancelled the registration of the Society in the name of 'Victory Ace Social Welfare Society, Flat No.1703, Block- W Homes 121, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar' (hereinafter referred to as 'Society').

4. Earlier the matter was travelled to this Court by means of Writ-C No.39288 of 2023 in which this Court passed the following order on 01.12.2023:- "1. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran as well as Shri Kartikeya Saran independently also, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Considering the fact that the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 has been passed on a complaint made by one Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead Sanjay Jain as respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition during the course of the day.

3. Since by the order impugned, registration of petitioner No. 9, Society has been cancelled, before the matter could be heard on merits, the Court raised query from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why should this writ petition be entertained ignoring statutory remedy of appeal under section 12-D(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in the State of U.P.) Answering the said query, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar against entertainment of a writ petition particularly in those cases where either the order is without jurisdiction or it has been passed committing utter violation of principles of Natural Justice.

4. In the light of the said submission, the Court proceeded to satisfy itself as to whether one or both the aforesaid ingredients stand satisfied in the facts of the present case.

5. It is contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 are the members of petitioner No.9, Society, which was registered on 13.11.2019. The submission is that one builder namely, Dream Procon Private Limited (DPPL) proceeded to construct a residential project, however it become insolvent and the proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were launched against him and the matter is now pending before National Company Law Tribunal. The submission is that in order to complete the incomplete project left out by the builder, when the petitioners formed a society and got it registered in 2019, they submitted a proposal to the Committee of Creditors, which approved the same in its meeting dated 07.05.2021 and now the matter is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal for further orders. It is contended that the newly impleaded respondent No. 3, Sanjay Jain, who is neither a Home Buyer nor a member of the petitioners' Society, but a man of the builder himself, proceeded to move complaints one after another, against the affairs of the Society since 2021 onwards and the petitioners continued to respond to the said complaints before the Deputy Registrar, however no order was passed by the Deputy Registrar, but this time, in pursuance of identical complaints of 2023, the order impugned has been passed recording that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar, no response has been given by the petitioners and, therefore, it would be presumed that they have no say in the matter. Recording such observation, the registration of the Society has been cancelled.

6. Submission is that cancellation of registration of the Society would nullify the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal as well as the petitioners' interest in the matter, and in that event not only the project would remain incomplete forever, but also the buyers and other members of the Society shall suffer.

7. Having perused the record, the Court finds that there is no finding recorded in the order impugned on merits or as regards to the satisfaction of the requirements under section 12-D of the Act of 1860. The only reason assigned in the order impugned is that two show cause notices issued in June and September, 2023 remained unanswered. The record of the writ petition shows that for the last about three years, identical exercise was going on, but there was no adjudication.

8. In the totality of the facts of the case, particularly when the Committee of Creditors has already approved the resolution plan submitted by the petitioners-Society and the matter is sub-judice before the National Company Law Tribunal and in any case, it is the interest of the Home Buyers that has to be primarily taken care of by this Court, the cancellation of registration of the Society without recording any justification or reasonable finding appears to be prima facie illegal.

9. Under such circumstances, the Court is also satisfied that principles of Natural Justice have been violated as there is no consideration of response given to the identical complaints and, therefore, availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is not an absolute bar in entertainment of this writ petition.

10. Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent No.3, returnable within six weeks.

11. Steps be taken within ten days.

12. The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks.

13. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.

14. List this case before the appropriate Bench in top ten cases on 03.04.2024.

15. The petitioners are directed to submit a detailed reply before the Deputy Registrar as against the complaints or show cause notice etc. along with a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Registrar in the month of December, 2023.

16. The Deputy Registrar shall make a fresh adjudication of the matter strictly in accordance with law, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the complainant Sanjay Jain, before 31.03.2024.

17. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut shall remain stayed."

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.12.2023, the matter has been decided by the respondent no.2 by order dated 04.09.2024 by which he has cancelled the registration of the Society.

6. The sole contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that impugned order has been passed without application of mind inasmuch as it is bereft of any reason. It is submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking inasmuch as no reason has been assigned by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad in concluding that Society is engaged in industrial and commercial activities. Thus, it is contended that since no reason has been given by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad while passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

7. Be that as it may, the relevant finding given by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order is reproduced herein below:- "अततः उपररो्ሹ कके ्ቅम मम ससंस्थथा ककी गतततविधधियोሱ पसंजजीककत ममूल पसंजजीककत ममूल उदकेश्य एविसं तनियम और पसंजजीकरण कके आविकेदनि कके समय उनिकके दथारथा ्ቚस्ततुत शपथ पतोሱ कके तविपरजीत। तविपरजीत हहै। ससंस्थथा सरोसथायटजी रधजस्टटकेशनि एक्ट 1860 कके अन्तगरत कल्यथाणकथारजी वि गहैर लथाभकथारजी सरोसथाइटजी कके रूप मम पसंजजीककत हरोनिके कके बथाविजमूद व्यथाविसथातयक एविसं विथातणजजयक गतततविधधियोሱ मम ससंधल्቎ हहै। उपररो्ሹथानितुसथार ्ቚश्निगत सरोसथाइटजी अपनिके पसंजजीककत उदकेश्योሱ कके अनितुरूप कथायर करनिके मम पमूणरततः तविफल रहजी हहै। अततः तविक्टटजी ऐस सरोशल विकेलफकेयर सरोसथाइटजी, फ्लहैट निसं0-1703, ब्लथाक डब्ल्यमू हरोम्स, 121, निरोएडथा, सहैक्टर-121, सहैक्ट निरोएडथा, गगौतमबतु्ቍनिगर कथा पसंजजीकरण सरोसथाइटजीज रधजस्टटकेशनि एक्ट 1860 कके अन्तगरत पसंजजीकरण ससंख्यथा-जजीबजीएनि/07116 पतथाविलजी ससंख्यथा-एम/जजीबजीएनि/0017762, पसंजजीकरण तदनिथासंकतः 13.11.2019 करो सरोसथाइटजीज रधजस्टटकेशनि एक्ट 1860 ककी धिथारथा-12 घ (ग) कके अन्तगरत तत्कथाल ्ቚभथावि सके तनिरस्त तकयथा जथातथा हहै। उपररो्ሹथानितुसथार मथानिनिजीय उच्च स्थथायथालय, इलथाहथाबथाद मम यरोधजत यथातचकथा ससं0-39288/2023 मम पथाररत आदकेश तदनिथासंकतः 01.12.2023 कके अनितुपथालनि मम ्ቚकरण तनिस्तथाररत तकयथा जथातथा हहै।"

8. Learned counsel for the respondents despite his best effort could not demonstrate from the impugned order that respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad while recording a finding that Society is involved in industrial and commercial activities has assigned any reason in respect of said finding.

9. Perusal of the order, extracted above, reveals that no reason at all has been given by the respondent no.2 in concluding that Society is engaged in commercial and industrial activities.

10. In such view of the fact, the impugned order being non-speaking and without application of mind is not sustainable in law and is accordingly, set aside.

11. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ghaziabad to decide the dispute afresh strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

12. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

4. After going through the same, the Court is of the opinion that the present petition has now become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismiss as having become infructuous.

5. At this stage, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the petition has now become infructuous but the observation should be made that order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Meerut U.P. by which the registration of Victory Ace Social Welfare Society had been cancelled has now became in operative pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent No.2 on 04.09.2023 as well as the order

25.10.2024 passed by this Court which is quoted above..

6. In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous subject to observation that the order dated 07.10.2023 which is under challenge in the present petition has now become inoperative. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad